Let's call it the "Pax Gorgeous".
Posted on 12/26/2008 12:46:48 AM PST by GonzoII
Oh, I understand now, Pat, we can "comprimise" or adjust with non-moralabsolutes and not be labeled a "RINO". /sarc
So, when’s Pat going to give up his Mercedes and buy a Ford to support the domestic auto industry?
Setting the stage to repeat the Great Depression. (Protectionism lengthened, deepened, and widened it.)
Exactly. Flawed flawed prescriptions for the disease we have
Protectionism is a great way to deepen the crises and stall economic activity
You have two product of equal quality, Foreign product cost half the American. Do you say country first? Rich folks have the luxury of paying the the higher price but for most ppl, we go for the cheaper product
He did fairly well with what he had. No Major attacks as we speak... The ‘pax (how do you say Bush in Latin?)...’
"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," President Bush told CNN,
That hurts my head.
Ronald Reagan, too, was not prepared to see Japan take down the U.S. auto industry, or steel industry, or computer chip industry, or Harley-Davidson.
We saw how that worked out.
There's no need to cover the auto industry, since that's in the news.
None of the top five steel producers are based in America (Luxembourg, Japan, South Korea, and China).
Most ICs are produced in China, Japan, and Korea.
So, out of the list, what can we claim? Oh, Harley Davidson bikes. Whoop-de-damn-doo.
For other nations, as The Washington Post reports, are far ahead of Bush in sheltering their industries and protecting their markets:
Indonesia, Russia, France, Argentina, Brazil, and India?!
None of those countries are supposed to be the champions of Capitalism. We are.
The United States has just filed charges with the World Trade Organization against China for "unfair support of its export industry -- including the award of cash grants, rebates and preferential loans to exporters."
Hypocrisy alert!
Libertarians of the Milton Friedman school may be unforgiving of Bush.
And Objectivists aren't very happy, either.
Were all the Playstations and Priuses worth it?
Is it a modded Playstation? Cause, uh, I've got backups...
Not much of a car guy, so I don't care about the Prius.
But in 1946, Japan produced almost no steel, no TVs and no cars. Instead of buying them from America, Tokyo subsidized its own steel, TV and auto industries for decades, and protected their market.
Which was wrong, too.
Like Prohibition in Hoover's phrase, globalism is "an experiment, noble in purpose, that has failed."
Sigh. If this is truly what Pat believes, I have to seriously question his judgment.
The simple fact is: the world economy is deeply interconnected and will only grow more so.
With the tax-and-trade policies of the Old Republican Party that made America first by putting Americans first, we can be that nation again.
Rawr!
*barf*
This was not a bailout of the “Big Three.” It was a bailout of the UAW. No business model could ever sustain a situation where you have one tenth of your obligations to a workforce and nine tenths to retirees and health care. This makes Social Security look like the picture of health.
Let's call it the "Pax Gorgeous".
He took the bull by the horns for sure in the wot.
Pat Buchanan drives a Ford:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16wwln-domains-t.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Find a new talking point, import boy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan
“The 1992 Bush re-election campaign ran a TV ad in Michigan that mocked Buchanan’s economic nationalism. In it, a voiceover read, “Pat Buchanan tells us ‘America First.’ But while our auto industry suffers, Pat Buchanan chose to buy a foreign car, a Mercedes-Benz. Pat Buchanan called his American cars ‘lemons.’”[137] At the time Buchanan said he bought it in 1989 “for the missus” and that unloading it would be an empty gesture.[138] He later sold the car back to its previous owner.[139] In 2002, he said he drove a Lincoln Navigator and a Cadillac STS.[140]”
Why do you think I referenced a Ford? Sheesh.
Yeah, GM is something to be really proud of. Its shareholders are so proud of it, the stock is worthless.
Care to explain that theory???
How is it that these automakers became the global bishots they are with unions in the first place? Why is it that all of a sudden, in the last two years the unions are the destruction of these companies. If the unions were so destructive wouldn't they have failed decades ago? How did they stay profitable until recently?
Because people were stupidly and blindly buying inferior union-made product - and enough of them have finally been fed up. See what happened to British Leyland for an example.
If you don’t think so, ask those people (other than me) here on FR who bought imports *why* they bought imports.
It is simple, it is all about incentives
Protectionism de-incentiveses (I made up that word) trade and reduces efficiency.
People will be less willing to buy a product from overseas, or attempt to sell a product overseas. People can either buy a crappier more expensive product, or just sit on their money
Odds are they will just sit on their money and do nothing
Care to explain that theory???
Here's an excellent column by Dr. Thomas Sowell on that very subject. Pat Buchanan would do well to read Sowell's writings.
''Tariff Disaster Offers a Lesson on the Folly of Protectionism''
Some folks fall down and worship any and everything Sowell says...I’m not one of those people...And I’m sure Pat Buchanan reads Sowell as well...
If you move industry back to the US, more people go to work and get off welfare...
More people have money to spend...This creates a need for more products and ultimately more work...
This raises the tax base so MAYBE our taxes will not go up as fast...
How can one argue against that???
You asked for an explanation and I believe Dr. Sowell gave an excellent one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.